Hayes v. Mills

Sixth Circuit

Hayes v. Mills

19 F. App'x 274

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 12, 2001

DocketNo. 00-5579

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F. App'x 274 (Hayes v. Mills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayes v. Mills, 19 F. App'x 274 (6th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case is before the court upon remand by the Supreme Court for reconsideration in the light of Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000). In Artuz, the Court determined that, where a state application for post-conviction or other collateral review meets, applicable rules and laws governing such filings, the application is “properly filed” and thus tolls the statute of repose applicable to habeas corpus petitions regardless of whether the claims contained therein are precluded by procedural bar. Artuz, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. at 363-64.

Upon consideration in the light of the Supreme Court’s determination, we must vacate the district court’s judgment that dismissed Hayes’s habeas petition as barred by the statute of repose because Hayes’s second state post-conviction action tolled the limitations period. Artuz, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. at 363-64; Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Therefore, consideration of the merits of Hayes’s § 2254 petition is not barred.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is vacated pursuant to Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, and the case is remanded to the district court for further consideration.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

This case is before the court upon remand by the Supreme Court for reconsideration in the light of Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000). In Artuz, the Court determined that, where a state application for post-conviction or other collateral review meets, applicable rules and laws governing such filings, the application is “properly filed” and thus tolls the statute of repose applicable to habeas corpus petitions regardless of whether the claims contained therein are precluded by procedural bar. Artuz, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. at 363-64.

Upon consideration in the light of the Supreme Court’s determination, we must vacate the district court’s judgment that dismissed Hayes’s habeas petition as barred by the statute of repose because Hayes’s second state post-conviction action tolled the limitations period. Artuz, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. at 363-64; Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Therefore, consideration of the merits of Hayes’s § 2254 petition is not barred.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is vacated pursuant to Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, and the case is remanded to the district court for further consideration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. App'x 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-mills-ca6-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack